For those interested, I shot most of a wedding (all of the outdoor shots) with my 10-24 a few weeks ago...

Finally put it all online. Please ignore the noise in the sky above the tree line, it didn't bother me enough to fix...at this time...

Page 1 was all overcast/rainy, page 2 starts with some decent amount of outdoor light...

http://dave.oc7.org/gallery/main.php/GTG/weddings/abbey_and_bob_super/

Here's a decent 10mm shot...
http://dave.oc7.org/gallery/main.php/GTG/weddings/abbey_and_bob_super/DSC_2342.jpg.html

And 10mm looking back up at where I took the above shot:
http://dave.oc7.org/gallery/main.php/GTG/weddings/abbey_and_bob_super/DSC_2400.jpg.html

-- Dave

for LSE: the new sigma is going to be 650 dollars BTW. so it exceed 600 dollars limit.

and for Mb, i dont think 17-55 is worth the price. i have read so many reviews that states tamron 17-50 is as sharp as this lens and you just basically paying more for better build quality and faster focusing speed.

thom hogan even said that this is an WAY OVERPRICED lens. i disagree with you on this 17-55 lens. it should be priced around 800-900 dollars NEW. not 1200.

In the country where i am living in now, the price is even more ridiculous. its 1600 bucks and those people who bought it at 1600 us dollars are dumbass imho.

for everyone, i will share my thought on this.

10-24 has been reviewed and said to be sharper in the corner compared to 12-24.
and it is also wider. so it should be better.

and comparing 10-24 to 14-24 is pointless. 14-24 is much less wide compared to 10-24..
and also 14-24 is HEAVY AND cant take filter and SUPER EXPENSIVE.

so its really not fair to say that everyone should go for 14-24 instead of this lens. The main problem that bug me about 14-24 is the fact that I cant put filter on that lens.

>As far as the absence of reviews, it is indeed somewhat surprising. My only explanation is that the pros are >shooting mostly full frame now, and this is dropping down the priority list

yup. the pro's are shooting FF now, which means there is no room for a $900 DX lens for the ammateurs. thanks for proving my point :) I wouldn't have made it better.

Not all DX lens should not cost above 600$, 17-55 well deserves its price tag but 10-24 does not.
You could get professional Nikon 12-24 for just a couple more and it is better in every aspect, and there is plethora of same or better lens from other manufacturers such as Tokina 11-16 and 12-24, Sigma 10-20 and 12-24, Tamron original 10-24 (I have never seen this one but it exists) and even Canon 10-22 costs less. And I am not sure how moronic one should be just to go for Nikon at that price for no reason at all.
And I do not collect coupons (does Nikon give them with Prozac?).

I also agree with mb that the price tag is a little bit to high on this lens -sth from $500-$600 would do the job better, groovy not all of the readers live in US, so indeed it can cost $700 in US, but can be much more in other parts of the world. As for professionals using this lens, hmm... it's not a professional lens at all - both new and old sigma's are more professional than this lens (in case of build quality), not to mention the IQ from sigma lenses which is really great (considering price of course). Moreover there is a wide zoom lens for pros already on the market - 14-24 and it was launched long before this nikorr.

>>No DX lens should ever cross the 600 dollar barrier. It just totally misses the point of
>>the cropped buget format.
It's a cropped sensor genius, not a cropped budget. So I guess all the third-party DX lenses that cross your $600 barrier are also pointless?

Yeah, the Nikon 10-24 at $900 is not 2x better than the Sigma 10-20 at $500. But people who expect that are just morons. The increase in price in higher-end goods is rarely commensurate with the value delivered --- that is the whole point. In exchange for $400 you get something that is highly unlikely to be a lemon, with color rendering that is consistent with the rest of the Nikon line, image quality that probably matches the third-party lenses in any one category and does not have the glaring shortcomings of the third-party line (inconsistent focusing and weird distortions of the Sigma 10-20, CA of the Tokina 12-24, atrocious corners of the Tamron 10-24). If this is not worth $400 to you fine, move on, but don't look for petty reasons to bash the lens.

By the way, a week ago it was possible to get this lens for $770 shipped after all coupons, cashbacks, etc were stacked on the J&R website. Their price has since gone up by $40, but I find 30% not too unreasonable a premium for a Nikon lens at least from a historical perspective. People were not complaining too loud about the Nikon 17-55 costing 3x as much as the Tamron 17-50.

As far as the absence of reviews, it is indeed somewhat surprising. My only explanation is that the pros are shooting mostly full frame now, and this is dropping down the priority list. It is not like this lens breaks any new ground, it simply refreshes a 6-7 year old design and addresses a gap that developed during that time. IMO this is completely different from the endless 18-XX steam of DX lenses we have been getting lately that seem to be driven by nothing other than marketing.

If it was 600$ it would have already been mine, it is good lens but not 1000$ good so I returned it.

wow so no major reviews and even less owners. well done nikon. wasting time on DX lenses that cost 900 bucks proves to be total stupidity. No DX lens should ever cross the 600 dollar barrier. It just totally misses the point of the cropped buget format.

AcquaCow my thoughts exactly, one would expect a bit more for 1000$. 12-24 is not much more but is better in all aspects except those 2 darn millimeters..

I picked up a 10-24 last week for a weeding this last weekend.

It seems "alright" for most shots, but isn't as sharp as I'd like.
It's a bit soft until you get up around /5.6 and doesn't get much sharper by /8.

I'll have to do some more daylight testing and process the wedding photos so that I can give you samples.
I could just be missing the focus point, as there's a lot of image coming through that viewfinder at 10mm...but even at 24mm I didn't notice it being drastically different in 10mm in terms of sharpness. It is certainly better, but I think my 18-70 is sharper at 24mm than the 10-24 (and I will test this).

The lens is by no means a dud, but I expected a little bit more for my $1000.

-- Dave

Ken Rockwell says his is on it's way. I'm sure we'll get a review from him soon enough, but it seems like he is predisposed to thinking it will be better than anything else out there. For that much $$$, it better be, but I'm secretly hoping the Sigma will still be good enough relative to the 10-24mm DX so I can save money without second guessing...

seeing is believing - my sigma 10-20 also covers full frame at around 15mm, but how about the IQ, on sigma corners are very soft, would love to see nikkor 10-24 samples. BTW: if You want to use filters on such a wide lens on FF you probably gonna close it a little bit more to 16 or even 17mm.

"Well, surprise, the 10-24mm seems to cover the FX frame at somewhere just under 15mm. That's right, this DX lens might actually be the 14-24mm FX lens that accepts filters!"

thats a good news ... wouldnt mind seen a bit more on this

Check out this French website.

http://www.lemondedelaphoto.com/TEST-AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-10-24mm-f-3-5,2126.html

Overall, impressive performance. Only weakness were the extreme corners @ 10mm, wide open. Corners pick up by f8. At all other focal lengths, it's very sharp from corner to center.

But the biggest surprise is from Thom Hogan (on his site):
"Well, surprise, the 10-24mm seems to cover the FX frame at somewhere just under 15mm. That's right, this DX lens might actually be the 14-24mm FX lens that accepts filters!"

That is excellent news for FX shooters, who need an up-to-date, relatively inexpensive alternative to the 14-24 and 17-35 that takes filters.

As I have said before, many people immediately dismissed this lens without even the slightest thought that this lens could cover FX. THe 12-24 did this after about ~17.5mm. But the new 10-24 outdoes its predecessor at 15mm!
WOW!

Simon

10-24 is the most useful ultra–wide lens on the market because it is great at really ultra wide 10mm as it is at almost normal 24 (which is the length I actually shoot at most often), just as 18-200 is the most useful middle range lens on the market IMHO.
This one unfortunately could not really compare to 14-24 2.8, it is neither built, neither CA free, neither as sharp as 14-24.
As for 12-24mm f/4G it is another story, I really do not see how Nikon will sell any of these in the future. It is identically built and has nothing more to offer over 10-24.

Most of the reviews I've read say the 12-24 is not one of Nikons better lenses. I was going to do the Tokina 11-16, but since this one overlaps nicely with my 18-200, I think I'll wait and see how it performs. I prefer to keep everything Nikon, if possible, and this one seems to be the perfect compliment.

"But mostly it's the same reason we have a the 14-24 and 12-24...and the 18-55, 18-70, 18-105, 18-135, and other such overlaps (probably should put 16-85 in there too...).

It's because Nikon can, and people will buy it."

I agree. I decided on the 12-24 because I wanted a constant aperture lens since this is mostly what I'm going toward these days. The Tokina is too narrow of a zoom range for me personally. CA isn't too big of a deal with me as my two cameras correct that automatically for the most part. So yeah, people will buy them and we all have different reasons.

If I didn't already have the Tokina 11-16, I'd probably get this. Yeah the Tokina is faster and constant aperture, but this one wins hands down in terms of flexibility (10-24 > 11-16) and I usually shoot my ultra-wide stopped down a bit anyway.

When I need a normal lens, 16mm doesn't quite get me there and I wind up having to switch it out for my 18-55.

Well, other than focal length differences, the 10-24 probably has better (less) CA and fringing than the 12-24.

But mostly it's the same reason we have a the 14-24 and 12-24...and the 18-55, 18-70, 18-105, 18-135, and other such overlaps (probably should put 16-85 in there too...).

It's because Nikon can, and people will buy it.

-- Dave

What I don't understand is why bring out a 10-24mm when there is a similarly priced (much cheaper if you buy second hand) 12-24mm available? Can anyone explain the differences?

so MB, can you give us comparison?

how this lens perform compared to sigma or nikon 14-24 2.8???

thanks

mb - why You wrote that this lens is the most useful on the market, by what category? It is not the only one wide zoom lens for dx

Yeah I took it with 10-24; why else would I post it? Build quality is comparable to 18-200, and that is pretty good I should say and what you should expect from Nikon lens in this price range. As you can see on the image (shot at 10mm) there is not much distortion (slight barrel as seen on the roof but more then acceptable for such a wide lens), almost invisible fringes on antenna was easily corrected, and it has very good resolution and acutance, aka sharpness. It is noiseless and fast to focus, and easily corrected manually if needed, as well as one could expect from this kind of lens, so yes I really like it. The only thing I disapprove a bit is the price; it is a bit higher than I expected, but hey it is the most useful ultra-wide DX zoom on the market.

You took this picture with the 10-24mm DX? Give us your opinions! Build quality, etc... you like?